It was used to mean something like "not at all." Not quite the same as English "no" (which Classical Latin didn't really have.)
Should we report it if "Not at all!" is not accepted for these sorts of sentences?
And what about Ecclesiastical Latin, is there any equivalent to English "no"?
Classical and Ecclesiastical are just different pronunciation styles. They're akin to a different accent within a dialect.
As far as Latin ways to say yes and no, Latin relied on restating the context with an affirming or negating word.
Estne Rōma in Graeciā? - Is Rome in Greece?
Rōma in Graeciā nōn est! - Rome is not in Greece!
In that context, could you instead answer with just "Nōn est!" or "Est!" for short? Languages tend to favor the evolution of short forms, so I imagine the Romans, too, would have come up with a way to affirm or negate something more briefly. Especially because that's such a common thing to need to do in everyday communication.
From what I can gather reading on wiktionary, "no" in English was derived from Proto-Germanic words ("nai" - never, or "ne" - not), while "no/não/non", etc. in Romance languages came from "non" in Latin whose meaning was closer to "not".
I deleted my previous comments to avoid confusion for future readers, not knowing it would delete the thread, but yes, I see what I mean now. "at home" as a complement" and "sleeping" as a participial phrase.
I wonder whether Latin has a deeper meaning to words like other classical languages? Like the word for house here 'domi'. In Classical Arabic there are different words for 'house', all carry a different meaning. 'Bayt' means the place where you sleep. 'Manzil' means 'the lower place, i.e. the place where you feet always get towards to easily. 'Maskan' means the place you relax and be at ease. 'Dar' means the place you stay close to and always return to. Does 'Domi' in Latin have a deeper meaning? Is it related to the word for sleeping (like 'the place where you sleep')?
domus “house” (domi “at home”) comes from an Indo-European root word to do with building. In English we have the word “timber” from the same root.
As a native speaker, I can tell you none of that is true about Arabic. How exactly would those meanings even evolve? Who puts their feet in a different building than the one they sleep? How would people have conversations where they kept those meanings separate, so that their children could learn those meanings and continue using them in their own language?
No, "nuzuul" is not just descending in Arabic, it can also mean to end/pause a journey somewhere, like French "descendre." It has nothing to do with feet. sakiina can indeed mean "serenity," but sakan means "to reside/residence," and that's the meaning that "maskan" derives from. Both "sakiina" and "sakan" are derived from a root that means "to stand still," so there's no poetic connection here or anything. And "dar" is derived from the root d-y-r and is therefore not related to d-w-r, if that's what you meant by "return." "Manzil" means "home," and "maskan" means "lodging," so if anything, you're more likely to use "maskan" to talk about a temporary shelter you adopt away from home, so it hardly means "the place you relax or be at ease." Now somebody could think up some poetic connection between the words for their own prose/poetry if they want to, just like in any other language, but that doesn't actually change the meaning or etymology of the words. Don't believe everything you read in internet memes.
I know very well that in modern, conversational Arabic these words have lost their meaning, and nobody speaks classical Arabic with their children.
Technically, I guess it should be accepted, but I'm not fluent in Latin.
Since "ita" means "yes," I don't see how it would be used for this sentence.
‘Ita’ actually means ‘so’ or ‘in this way’, so ‘ita non est’ means ‘it isn’t like that’.
The attested uses of "non ita" (I'm not seeing any citations in Lewis and Short for "ita non") are overwhelmingly in situations involving degree: not very large, not very wide, etc. so the "ita" is still being applied not to "non" but to the adjective. If you have another source that shows differently, I'm always up for learning something new.
So could this mean something like "I demand that Marcus sleep at home" or is there a different grammatical mood that you would use in Latin for that?
There are various ways Latin could express that, such as an imperative (direct command: Marcus, sleep at home! Marce, domi dormi!), or a subjunctive (a literal translation of your example: Postulo ut Marcus domi dormiat).
Thank you for answering! So could I leave out "Postulo ut" and just write "Marcus domi dormiat" or would that be wrong?
It's grammatically correct but would weaken the command/demand tone of your original sentence to more of an assertive "Marcus should/may/might sleep at home" or "let Marcus sleep at home."